N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN M ATTOX, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. LEA ANN C HR ONES, NKSP W arde n; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-17788 D.C . No. 1:08-c v-01265-FR Z M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Frank R . Za

pata , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 18, 2013 ** B e fore : TALLM AN, M . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r John M attox a ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t

c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a l le ging de libe ra te indiffe re nc e and e xc e s sive forc e . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de 

# FIL ED JUN 24 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).novo. Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004). W e m a y a ffirm on any ba s is supporte d by

the re c ord, Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008), a

nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on M attox’ s de libe ra t e indiffe re nc e c la im a g a inst C orre c t iona l Offic e r M onte z be c a use M attox fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r M onte z ’ s c onduc t in c onne c tion with the

c onfisc ation of M attox’ s ha ndke rc hie f am o unte d to de l ibe ra te indiffe re nc e . Se e J

e tt v . Pe nne r , 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th C ir. 2006) (to e s ta blish de libe ra t e indiffe re nc e , the prisone r m ust show “ (a ) a

purpose ful a c t or fa ilure to re spond to a

prisone r’ s pa i n or possible m e d ic a l ne e d

and (b) ha

rm c a use d by the indiffe re nc e ” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on M attox’ s e xc e ssive forc e c la im

a ga i nst M onte z be c a

use M attox fa ile d to ra ise a tria ble disputea s to whe the r M onte z use d forc e m a lic iously and sa distic a lly for the ve ry purpose of c a

using ha rm . Se e Martine

z v . Stanford

, 323 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th C ir. 2003) (e xpla ining tha

t c o re judic ia l inquiry

in a n e xc e ssive forc e a c tion is whe the r forc e wa s a

pplie d in a g o od fa ith e ffort to m a i nta in or re store disc iplineor m a lic iously

and sa distic a lly

for the ve ry

purpose of c a

using ha rm , a n d ide n tify ing fa c t ors for re solving suc h inquiry). 1 1 - 1 7 7 8 8 2The distric t c ourt did not err in de c lining to addre ss M attox’ s m otion to

pe rm it disc ove ry

be fore granting sum

m a ry judgm e nt. S

e e Margolis v . Ry an , 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th C ir. 1998) (providing the sta nda rd of re vie w, a

nd e xpla ining that in m aking a

m o tion for furthe r disc ove ry unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 56, them ova nt m ust ide ntify

what inform ation is sought a nd how it would pre c lude sum m ary judgm e nt). Nor did it a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing M attox’ s m otion re ga rding his deposition tra

nsc ript. Se e Halle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth the

sta nda rd of re vie w, a

nd sta ting tha t a de c ision to deny

disc ove ry will not be

disturbe d a

bse n t a c le ar showing of a c tua l a nd substa n tia l pre judic e ). Dism issa l of M attox’ s c l a im s a ga inst de fe nda nt M ay wa s prope r be c a

use M attox fa ile d to a lle g e suffic ie nt fa c ts in his First Am e nde d C om

pla int to show a c a usa l c onne c tion be twe e n M ay ’ s c onduc t a nd the a l le ge d c onstitutiona l viola tions. Se e S tarr v . Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th C ir. 2011) (disc ussing thec a usation e le m e nt of § 1983 c la im

in c onne c tion with a de fe nda nt supe rvisor); R e

snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 2000) (sta nda rd of re vie wfor a

dism issa l for fa ilure to sta

t e a c l a im unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f. Se e Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir.1999). AFFIRM E D. 1 1 - 1 7 7 8 8 3